According to former NHL coach Michel Bergeron, Scott Stevens was actually cleared to play for the playoffs but refused to do it. He did it because with a lockout next year, he would have lost his salary insurance. He decided that these playoffs would not worth the risk.

This is a scoop that will probably be picked up by other sports stations soon. The news broke out a couple of minutes ago.

I am not saying that this is true or not but Bergie is a credible source in Canada and I'm reporting what he said.

Are you saying that he sat out in order to retian the possibility of being able to claim that his injury ended his career, thus collecting on insurance on the deal?

I'm not sure that actually makes sense for two reasons:

1. Is his deal not guaranteed? How would sitting out the playoffs get him $$$ that he otherwise wouldn't get?2. Before any insurer pays a claim, wouldn't they search high and low for a doctor that says his injury WASN'T the reason he had to hang 'em up?

Are you saying that he sat out in order to retian the possibility of being able to claim that his injury ended his career, thus collecting on insurance on the deal?

I'm not sure that actually makes sense for two reasons:

1. Is his deal not guaranteed? How would sitting out the playoffs get him $$$ that he otherwise wouldn't get?2. Before any insurer pays a claim, wouldn't they search high and low for a doctor that says his injury WASN'T the reason he had to hang 'em up?

/not claiming to be an expert

This case is different because of the lockout that's coming before next season. If a player is still not cleared to play because of a previous injury, then the team still has to pay him even though no one else is being paid.However I was under the impression that it was the team doctors and not the player who are responsible for making this decision so this doens't sound quite right.